>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^probie:
Businesses attempting to capitalize on a tragedy (and therefore increase their profits - they are capitalists, remember?) does not a conspiracy make. Until they're able to do an approximate re-creation, ie. build another tower using the same grade steel and materials made in the 70's, age it for 30+ years, reproduce the same weight load on said structure, and then fly a plane into it, all of this is moot. There are so many factors in reproducing what happened on 9/11, attempting only one part of it to support an entire conspiracy is ludicrous.
Where's all the conspiracy nuts talking about how the US govt. took out Pearl Harbor? It happened, right? Right?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=445
http://historyrat.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/conspiracy-theory
-fdr-and-pearl-harbor/
Not that I subscribe to this, but you asked.... I think there's some for and against the theory, I didn't really take the time to read them since I'm at work.
The theory is not that they "took it out", but that they had foreknowledge it was going to occur, and let it.



Oy vey. The psychosis runs deep in those who can't accept that shit just does happen. It must suck to live life in constant state of self-induced victimization and the need for validation. I wonder what conspiracy theories they come up with when they drop a coffee cup, or stub their toe?

>> ^probie:

Businesses attempting to capitalize on a tragedy (and therefore increase their profits - they are capitalists, remember?) does not a conspiracy make. Until they're able to do an approximate re-creation, ie. build another tower using the same grade steel and materials made in the 70's, age it for 30+ years, reproduce the same weight load on said structure, and then fly a plane into it, all of this is moot. There are so many factors in reproducing what happened on 9/11, attempting only one part of it to support an entire conspiracy is ludicrous.
Where's all the conspiracy nuts talking about how the US govt. took out Pearl Harbor? It happened, right? Right?


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=445
http://historyrat.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/conspiracy-theory-fdr-and-pearl-harbor/

Not that I subscribe to this, but you asked.... I think there's some for and against the theory, I didn't really take the time to read them since I'm at work.

The theory is not that they "took it out", but that they had foreknowledge it was going to occur, and let it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Public unions' benefits are not merit-based and do not reflect the demands of markets.


You're right about that, as: "Wisconsin state and local governments and school districts pay college-educated workers on average 25% less than do private employers."

http://www.epi.org/newsroom/press-entry/news_from_epi_epi_study_finds_wisconsin_public-sector_workers_under-compens

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then, secondly, like I said, it finds "most of the media" has a "leftist bias" thats because FOX has, as I said, moved the standard on the right into crazyville. This makes anyone left of Reagan basically into a "leftist." Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange. I'm not American, I'm Norwegian, and frankly American left or right politics mean very little to me, nor, I think, to the rest of the world. To me what matters is that American politicians are reality-based and care about other countries and their history as well as their own, that they respect international laws and treaties and that they know about real problems like global warming and so on.

Which reminds me,the fact that I mention global warming probably proves to you that I'm a "leftist" but in the rest of the world GW is not a partisan issue: It's just a scientific fact. And that example alone is enough to show how screwed up the American right has become. Not only are they denying undeniable scientific fact, but they've managed to make it a partisan issue. Basically they've managed to get half the country to ignore the available data on the changing climate, as well as a few other things, like evolution.

We don't really have partisan lines like that, sure we have fiscal conservatives and progressives, left and right and so on, but we dont have the same degree of reality denial. (Alas, I fear it might be on its way to some of the populistic parties, inspired by the success in the US) Anyway we have discussions and debates and disagree on important principles and so on. But no side lies and distorts systematically, no side is fundamentally antiscientific, and no side is full of religious nuts.. Oh well, I guess what I'm saying is that theres nothing wrong about being right wing, but theres something seriously wrong with the rightwingers.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.
As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.
So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.

As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.

So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

@WKB

True, but when the Columbine school shooting was perpetrated, conservatives were quick to point the finger at Marilyn Manson's lyrics. I'm not saying they were right, and I'm not saying that Fox deserves all of the blame here either.

I do think though, that the people pumping that kind of rhetoric onto the airwaves deserve SOME responsibility for atrocities like this. Allow me to compare the Woodstock of 1970 to the Woodstock of '99 for an example.

-------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1970 Woodstock (billed as "3 days of Peace and Music") resulted in reports like this:

"The New York Times covered the prelude to the festival and the move from Wallkill to Bethel.[13] Barnard Collier, who reported from the event for the Times, asserts that he was pressured by on-duty editors at the paper to write a misleadingly negative article about the event. According to Collier, this led to acrimonious discussions and his threat to refuse to write the article until the paper's executive editor, James Reston, agreed to let him write the article as he saw fit. The eventual article dealt with issues of traffic jams and minor lawbreaking, but went on to emphasize cooperation, generosity, and the good nature of the festival goers.

When the festival was over, Collier wrote another article about the exodus of fans from the festival site and the lack of violence at the event. The chief medical officer for the event and several local residents were quoted as praising the festival goers."

--------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1999 version of the event (featuring bands like Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock and the Red Hot Chili Peppers who are all, dare I say, a bit angrier [lyrically speaking] than the likes of Arlo Guthrie or Joan Baez) is painted in a much different color:

"Some crowd violence and looting was reported during the Saturday night performance by Limp Bizkit, including a rendition of the song "Break Stuff". Reviewers of the concert criticized Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst as "irresponsible" for encouraging the crowd to destructive behavior.

Violence escalated the next night during the final hours of the concert as Red Hot Chili Peppers performed. A group of peace promoters led by an independent group called Pax had distributed candles to those stopping at their booth during the day, intending them for a candlelight vigil to be held during the Red Hot Chili Peppers' performance of the song "Under the Bridge". During the band's set, the crowd began to light the candles, some also using them to start bonfires. The hundreds of empty plastic water bottles that littered the lawn/dance area were used as fuel for the fire.

After the Red Hot Chili Peppers were finished with their main set, the audience was informed about "a bit of a problem." An audio tower caught fire, and the fire department was called in to extinguish it.

Back onstage for an encore, the Chili Peppers' lead singer Anthony Kiedis remarked how amazing the fires looked from the stage, comparing them to a scene in the film Apocalypse Now.[12] The band proceeded to play "Sir Psycho Sexy", followed by their rendition of Jimi Hendrix's "Fire". Kiedis later stated in his autobiography, Scar Tissue that Jimi Hendrix's sister had asked the Chili Peppers to play "Fire" in honor of Jimi and his performance at the original Woodstock festival, and that they were not playing it to encourage the crowd.

Many large bonfires were burning high before the band left the stage for the last time. Participants danced in circles around the fires. Looking for more fuel, some tore off panels of plywood from the supposedly inviolable security perimeter fence. ATMs were tipped over and broken into, trailers full of merchandise and equipment were forced open and burglarized, and abandoned vendor booths were turned over, and set afire.[13]

MTV, which had been providing live coverage, removed its entire crew. MTV host Kurt Loder described the scene in the July 27, 1999 issue of USA Today:

"It was dangerous to be around. The whole scene was scary. There were just waves of hatred bouncing around the place, (...) It was clear we had to get out of there.... It was like a concentration camp. To get in, you get frisked to make sure you're not bringing in any water or food that would prevent you from buying from their outrageously priced booths. You wallow around in garbage and human waste. There was a palpable mood of anger."

After some time, a large force of New York State Troopers, local police, and various other law enforcement arrived. Most had crowd control gear and proceeded to form a riot-line that flushed the crowd to the northwest, away from the stage located at the eastern end of the airfield. Few of the crowd offered strong resistance and they dispersed quickly back toward the campground and out the main entrance."

>>>>>>See also, this poignant response from a person in the crowd: http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/08/17/woodstock-legacy/ (crowdmember comments @ 2:20)

----------------------------------------

Now now easy there big fella, before you start telling me about how correlation does not imply causation consider this: an article recently published by the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that:

"Childhood exposure to parental verbal aggression was associated, by itself, with moderate to large effects on measures of dissociation, limbic irritability, depression, and anger-hostility." Furthermore, "Combined exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence was associated with extraordinarily large adverse effects, particularly on dissociation. This finding is consonant with studies that suggest that emotional abuse may be a more important precursor of dissociation than is sexual abuse."
See: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/6/993

Maybe not the best example I could have found but I've already spent WAY too much time on this post. The point is, WORDS carry a lot of power. Even if the pundits (right OR left) never came out and said it, the implication of violence was certainly there at times.

I KNOW Fox has lead the charge of fear mongering in the name of ratings but anyone else who subscribed to that level of attack should share some of the blame as well. Again, not saying that they should take all or even a lot of the blame, but they should be responsible for the violent laced rhetoric they spout.

I say STOP THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS and we'll see less violence against PEOPLE and (hopefully) more enthralling arguments where the IDEAS are being attacked (which I'm all for) :-)

p.s. sry for the huge post but i was on a roll

>> ^Reefie:

What is it with Republicans talking sense lately? Maybe Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul can encourage the rest of their party to actually collaborate with the Democrats and then we can see some real progress!


Sanders is an independent and self-described socialist. The Republicans are more likely to listen to Jimmy Carter.

[redacted]

There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you

Well with a rational argument like that, you’re fully qualified to be a journalist for the Washington Post. Send in your application today while it still exists.

Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.

A person such as yourself looks at the vast swathe of center/left to hard/left media and thinks, “nothing wrong here…” From this radical position, any news story that doesn’t hew to a leftist ideology offends you. So when a news outlet is actually 'fair and balanced’ your radical-left blinders force you to see it as being ‘right wing neocon'. You say the media isn’t liberal. Facts dismiss your opinion as incorrect and confirm my statements as accurate.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

using another unrepresentative quote?

Unrepresentative? No. Totally representative. And know what? IMMA DOIN' IT AGAIN!

You said “I’m sure there’ll be sufficient oversight” and then made a few unsupported opinions related to this naïve assumption. There is no need to triple down in the repetition. It was a bunch of non-factual opinions based assumptions which deny reality and precedent. Every specious opinion about “sufficient oversight” was also made regarding the tobacco settlement. The bulk of that never reached the ‘victims’. Same for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and even the vaunted 9/11 Victim's Fund can't account for hundreds of millions of lost dollars. This'll be no different.

Apparently it won't be controlled by the government either, and both BP and Obama are saying "[t]his fund does not supersede either individuals' rights or states' rights to present claims in court."

1. Putting the fund under his pay czar is putting it ‘under the government’. 2. You can’t trust anything Obama says as far as you could throw a tar-soaked dolphin. 3. !I! was the one that said people can sue anyway. That’s the point. If people can sue, then let them go to the courts. That’s where this belongs. We shouldn't get into the BAD habit of creating government slush funds for every event that comes down the pike. That will just repeat the "failed policies of the past".

Oh - and just so you know - I won't get my knickers in a knot if you just use 'pull quotes' from my massive texts. That's common practice for brevity - nothing sinister. It would be a truly silly goofball who would take umbrage to that...

EDWARD R. MURROW

RTNDA Convention
Chicago
October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do--you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television have been "rather beastly." There have been hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics of print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. If the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment or on a program for which they were responsible until they heard'd the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition confidence.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio--that most satisfying and rewarding instrument--is concerned, the diagnosis of its difficulties is rather easy. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. To the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, alert and fast. I recently asked a network official, "Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?" He replied, "Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell."

In this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the why of the news in broadcasts where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't about any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news.

My memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network practically apologized. This produced a rarity. Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for initiative. But the other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China--a reasonably compelling subject. Two networks CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn't deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is about twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"--the networks cannot pay all the freight--and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders' money for advertising are removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision--if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I doubt she was warehoused strictly for that speech. Sounds like a personal conflict between her and the manager. Still a lame way to run a newsroom.

This is a prime example of infotainment purposefully trying to get the audience riled up. It would have taken less than five seconds for them to mention that swastikas have many different meanings in different cultures, and I can't believe that somebody in that newsroom hadn't heard about that fact.

"How China is turning our kids into Nazis, tonight at 11."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

The first link is about a study that counts references to liberal vs conservative policy groups and think tanks in news stories between '95 and '05. It counts the NAACP as a liberal policy group. I don't think reporting on the NAACP indicates a liberal bias. The study removes context from all these references, so it really proves nothing. Fox News mentions ACORN every 7 seconds: does that mean they have a liberal slant?

The second link says nothing about bias. People can have a personal political opinion while working in an objective manner, such as judges.

The third link is a results grid for a large survey of journalists, and again none of those results show bias. I don't think a survey could even provide direct evidence of a bias.

The last link actually says that the majority of journalists are moderates--not that their political view would have proved bias anyway.

Maybe you don't understand what bias is, or what the complaints about Fox News are.

You mean there are no 'real' news network, and EVERYone is biased ?

Yes - to the right or left - every 'news' outlet is biased in (A) what it chooses to make news or (B) how it serves up what it chooses to present. Glad you picked up on that.

So your completely conceeding you have no facts what so ever and are just restating your opinion.

No - that is your personal interpretation. I have presented nothing BUT facts. You simply refuse to accept them. That is your problem, not mine. The fact that the mainstream news outlets are liberally biased is well established and documented. I doubt the presentation of the case will matter, but here is a tiny smattering of a far larger world.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

your more or less saying the 'left wing media' is bad... so the right wing media has every right ot be just as bad.

No - I am saying that ALL the 'news media' (so called) are biased and have to be approached with suspicion and skepticism. I am a skeptic of both sides. I listen to both, and make my own evaluations. I am wary of any person or entity (esp government) that advocates only listening to ONE side of the story. I really thought liberals claimed they were open minded and progressive. What then is the objection to a robust national discourse that includes both the right-wing and left? Explain to me why one side of the debate 'must' be silenced and shut down. What part of liberalism embraced the abolition of the 1st ammendment when the news outlet espouses a differing opinion? When did political suppression becine a guiding principle of the left wing? When did democrats become the party that spits on diversity and freedom?

If they were a legitimate publicly broadcast news network they would require a license from the FCC.

Are you saying that Fox News is somehow under a different set of rules than CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and so forth? This is a new and fascinating claim to me and I must confess I am not aware of the specific legal and proceedural minutae you are doubtless referencing. Please elaborate and provide citations.

I love how people like Olbermann can't mention the complete name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (listen to the beginning of this video) If you would like to read Elder Oaks speech to the students at Brigham Young University you can go here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom