tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post114722499311401980..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Dems ahead, except for the fear-mongering factorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1147836406781686162006-05-16T23:26:00.000-04:002006-05-16T23:26:00.000-04:00"So there's nothing to be surprised about pro-GOP ..."So there's nothing to be surprised about pro-GOP fear mongering now and a lingerie show the next minute - it all reflects well in their finacial reports, right?"<BR/><BR/>The owner of Fox is not a conservative. If anything, he just lets the conservative commentators co-exist in his world because it is another a market to exploit. If any of those commentators had common sense, they’d never have agreed to get into bed, so to speak, with R. Murdoch.<BR/><BR/>Like you, I have really grown to despise a lot of news and TV. I watch a minute or two to get the most important stuff, and then shut it off. Keep it on any longer, and it tends to get repetitive and tiresome.<BR/><BR/>IF one really has nothing else to do, programs that inform are alright. "Hot rocks", Nat. Geo, etc.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I don't know if you're resorting to the old "liberal media bias" in your post or not. I hope you're not, since there is no such thing as this bias. But I guess the world is not as simple as we'd like, therefore we can't just pidgeonhole everything"<BR/><BR/> Sure it is. Simple, that is. People want their own way. That's what makes em biased. How could the media be any different than the people that it's made up from?<BR/><BR/>Regardless of the medium or source, true objectivity is just flat out rare. <BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1147821072156305702006-05-16T19:11:00.000-04:002006-05-16T19:11:00.000-04:00Is that all you saw? Actually, I wrote "I've HEARD...<B>Is that all you saw? </B><BR/><BR/>Actually, I wrote "I've HEARD Fox News displays", since I almost never watch TV (exceptions for hockey, rodeos and F1. Oh, and the coming World Cup, of course).<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you're resorting to the old "liberal media bias" in your post or not. I hope you're not, since there is no such thing as this bias. But I guess the world is not as simple as we'd like, therefore we can't just pidgeonhole everything in two (for Americans, maybe different for other people) neat little categories. So there's nothing to be surprised about pro-GOP fear mongering now and a lingerie show the next minute - it all reflects well in their finacial reports, right? They'll change when it does not pay to do what they do. Which goes back to what you wrote in the "Colbert-Stewart 2008" thread (and I agree with most of that): it is not only that each people has the gov't it deserves (as we usually say in Brazil), but it also has the media it not only deserves but wants.<BR/><BR/>Now, the "of course" at the end of your last post was quite appropriate. :-)<BR/><BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1147534018126372752006-05-13T11:26:00.000-04:002006-05-13T11:26:00.000-04:00"FOX is successful because it gives people the ide..."FOX is successful because it gives people the idea they are watching the news & getting well-informed, but the stronger message is the emotional subtext."<BR/><BR/><BR/>True. But we are emotional creatures. And I don't appreciate fear mongering from any news service. But even CNN and MSNBC found out that FOX's techniques were effective, and to a certain extent, changed theirs. That is, happier, prettier, livelier conversation between news anchors and what not. And as much as we may not like to admit it, humans respond to that.<BR/><BR/>Now I don't think that I would respond differently to a more handsome or pretty anchor person, however, if they seemed to have thought through the issue carefully...but, of course, that can be a trap too, if you don't KNOW WHO YOU ARE. At 15, 16, 17, 18 my mother always reminded me of that fact when I left the house, "remember WHO you are". (that is) If you don't know who you are, you will fall for anything. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes I didn't appreciate that as much a I should have, but she was right and I was wrong.<BR/><BR/>back to the media and who WE ARE: <BR/><BR/>"Neil Postman, the author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, understood these socialist strategies. He also saw the power of a cooperative media to fuel new cravings and dull old convictions. To illustrate today's manipulation of our minds, he drew an interesting contrast between two familiar totalitarian visions: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984:<BR/><BR/>"Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies.... <BR/><BR/>"In 1984 ... people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."[7] <BR/><BR/>The spiritual war against Christ and the cross is being waged on both fronts. The assault on religious freedom fits Orwell's vision. The flood of images and suggestions that distort traditional beliefs, twist Biblical values and trivialize Christian words, fit Huxley's vision. <BR/><BR/>While Orwellian repression intimidates many into silence and conformity, it also awakens faith and stirs resistance. But Huxley's "feelies" simply dull our thinking and distract our attention until trivia becomes the norm and Biblical conviction becomes -- under the new UN Mental Health standards -- an intolerable expression of deviance and extremism."... <BR/>by Berit Kjos<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/cross.htm<BR/><BR/>cal<BR/>(of course)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1147487430490835742006-05-12T22:30:00.000-04:002006-05-12T22:30:00.000-04:00James,you really need to get the facts straight. B...James,<BR/><BR/>you really need to get the facts straight. Bush did not win the '00 elections, he only got the Presidency because of the shady work of his brother in Florida and the fact that he had his father-appointed Supreme Court stop the recount. There is even reasonable doubt he won the '04 ones, since even Republicans admitted to a bit of "irregularities" in Ohio.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1147416794420503942006-05-12T02:53:00.000-04:002006-05-12T02:53:00.000-04:00FOX is successful because it gives people the idea...FOX is successful because it gives people the idea they are watching the news & getting well-informed, but the stronger message is the emotional subtext.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1147402400681640592006-05-11T22:53:00.000-04:002006-05-11T22:53:00.000-04:00"Yeah, expect a few raises in those ridiculous "te..."Yeah, expect a few raises in those ridiculous "terror alert" color codes (that I've heard Fox News displays on their screens a lot) here and there in the coming months..."<BR/><BR/>Is that all you saw? <BR/><BR/>I've noticed a lot of other things about Fox that are a lot more divisive and confusing than that. <BR/><BR/>Such as, a famous lingerie maker's "fashion show" wedged right in between a news show that a lot of families watch (because of the time), and another that a lot of guys watch. What's up with that? I personally wouldn't even call Fox conservative. <BR/><BR/>I've posted this commentary before, but, oh well.. <BR/><BR/>"... Not to be outdone by Hollywood liberals, Fox News, under its banner of "fair and balanced reporting" regularly provides titillating, tantalizing and tawdry stories for our consideration and consumption as if to be providing a legitimate public service by doing so. Posturing as respectable they are able end-run the conscience of their conservative viewers and readers who trust and accept Fox's self-polling and shrewd programming mix of prudence with perversion ONLY BECAUSE it has not been officially declared "liberal" by a compromised collective. <BR/><BR/> " This is exactly how the Hegelian Dialectic seduces its victims, my friends...dressing up as one thing while being another, mixing and blending right and wrong, good and evil, liberal and conservative until the confusion of compromise makes everyone and everything indistinguishable. That's the consensus process and the wily ways of The New World Order." Psalm 12:8<BR/>cal<BR/><BR/>http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:TmeSGviHVkYJ:www.crossroad.to/News<BR/>/consensus.html+Fox+news+dialectic<BR/>&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1147294016571317252006-05-10T16:46:00.000-04:002006-05-10T16:46:00.000-04:00Yeah, expect a few raises in those ridiculous "ter...Yeah, expect a few raises in those ridiculous "terror alert" color codes (that I've heard Fox News displays on their screens a lot) here and there in the coming months...<BR/><BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com