If the economy collapses the first people I will blame will be the newspapers. They should be tried for crimes against the state and if we're anything but in the top 10 economic powers, hung.
I have to agree with it being some sort of "scare tactic". It happens over here also. They report on a predicted gdp reversal as if it was the gospel and when it doesn't happen they redefine the scholarly definition of recession.Uzique wrote:
"Manage" as in the financial 'crisis' is overhyped and sensationalist.Kmarion wrote:
Explain manage.jord wrote:
I'm sure we'll manage.
We may have to tighten our purse-strings and contain our rabid consumerist binges (Oh no! No more thrice-weekly visits to the shopping mall!) but I'm sure we won't have widespread starvation and poverty, or a giant increase in the amount of home repossessions and job redundancies. That's the sign of a true economic downturn- and I think the British economy is in a decent enough position to absorb a downtime without sinking to that sort of low. The reason that our media and even our government officials spout out crap like "We're in for the roughest time financially since WWII rationing!!!!11" is because they know they're addressing a mass-herd of people that are dependant on their credit cards and their loans on gadgetry and shit that they simply don't need.
It's a scare-tactic, albeit a well-justified one. If people in this country did continue mass-borrowing and stupid spending then we could very well run into some large troubles. But as I said the real hallmarks of a recession won't occur here- there will be no more bank-runs; home repossessions won't reach a crazy level; and I doubt very much that any industry or job sector will be hit hard enough to cause high levels of redundancy.
Although thrice-weekly visits to the shopping mall are still in full swing here ..lol. I work right next to a large mall.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes but its always been a case of them being outside of people means but people have always managed to pay the debts off for those items because they are essential to living a good life. Whereas now days people get loans for cars and houses and nearly everything else which means they are far out of their depth to repay.usmarine wrote:
i know what you are saying ham sandwich, but a house and car are still technically outside the means of most people are they not?Vilham wrote:
people in the UK arent in debt because they have mortgages. Everyone in the UK has a mortgage and have done for the last 40 years.usmarine wrote:
like a house and car right? those are outside most peoples means, hence they have to borrow or "rent."
This is true. Consumer confidence play a major role in spending habits. At least with disposable income.jord wrote:
If the economy collapses the first people I will blame will be the newspapers. They should be tried for crimes against the state and if we're anything but in the top 10 economic powers, hung.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I thought that newspapers hype stuff up to get more sales?Kmarion wrote:
We spend much more on healthcare per citizen than you. No one will ever be turned away in an emergency.
No, what's funny is that despite elocuting numerous times my feelings on the issue we are discussing (social responsibility), lowing cannot comprehend (or refuses to accept) my opinion on the subject. Where do I say "the rich" should be solely responsible for those who cannot help themselves (for whatever reason)? If by "the rich" he means people who are financially secure enough to assist others that need assistance, then yes, I agree the rich should bear some responsibility. Ignorant, dumbass, insane, it's all the same - i've communicated my ideas many times to lowing. It's not my fault he wants to attribute to me a position he disagrees with so he can argue with me.ATG wrote:
It's funny how on these forums, in RL, on talk radio and on television, when liberals fail to communicate their ideas in a manner that is mass palatable and it doesn't go over, or when they disagree with somebody they always resort to unneeded name calling.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Give me a break dumbass.
It demonstrates a failure of confidence in their ideas, and a lack of security in the intellectual foundations of their beliefs that manifests itself in a hostile demeanor and smug attitude when it comes to opposing ideas; lacking the intellectual substance to your argument you divert attention from that fact by calling him a dumb ass when his tone was inquiring and thoughtful, dumb ass.
Lowing, what is the arbitrary point at which someone has the correct amount of indicators to allow you to help them? How much schooling? How much job experience? How much "drive"? You say people need to show that they want to better themselves, so I want to know how you come to your conclusion. Do you have a matrix you fill out with all their data to see if the numbers match up?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-09-02 10:16:05)
It's no problem .Kmarion wrote:
You'd know if I was going after you.jord wrote:
I hope this isn't linked to my "lol" in the other thread and you're going after me, intellectual style.Kmarion wrote:
Explain manage.
"Manage", you know, everything will sort itself out...
Uzique, thank you.
I wasn't so much trying to answer Jord's question for him as to just throw in my own two cents- which I think mirrored and echo'd a lot of the same sentiments and opinions that he had. Don't get me wrong from an economical point of view I know things are on the downturn... just it's largely exaggerated by our media and government. If they were to be truly realistic in their assessment of the figures then no one would listen. Your average person that really wants to take out a loan for that new 50" LCD TV doesn't really care that figures on the stock market are decreasing by +/- 100 point fluctuations. An average joe doesn't care about the measures governments are taking in economical and fiscal policy to control inflation and spending. The only way to truly shake-up the crowd and to get them to stop mass-borrowing from the banking institutions is to say "Ahh we're all heading towards a complete economic crash at 1000mph and all of your TV's and mobile phones and computers and nice cars will be worthless!".
Luckily for our government the general public has seen the physical and tangible effects of an economic downturn in the Northern Rock bank-run. They've seen what mass panic and negative economic speculation can do. Of course everyone knows that was largely caused by the American-triggered crisis in the mortgage markets, and really all we're feeling over here now in the months and quarters to come are the shockwaves and ripples coming off that wave. It's true enough that a lot of our major leading banks are seeing vast drops in their annual profits (with the Bank of Scotland losing £600m in fact I believe) but it's nothing even close to what's happening to some of your leading institutions over there. And the only reason said banks are suffering isn't because our own economy is inherently rotten to the core, it's just because they were playing on the bank of the fantasy-bubble that the American banks and markets created, which has now incidentally just happened to pop.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I had a buddy who worked for the Washington Times. He would let me log into his work computer. He could see the screens where they selected the stories to publish. I would watch them go around all the positive news and select the negative stuff. It was obnoxious.SEREVENT wrote:
I thought that newspapers hype stuff up to get more sales?Kmarion wrote:
We spend much more on healthcare per citizen than you. No one will ever be turned away in an emergency.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Washington Times is a sorry excuse for a newspaper to be honest. Isn't it owned by a Moonie?Kmarion wrote:
I had a buddy who worked for the Washington Times. He would let me log into his work computer. He could see the screens where they selected the stories to publish. I would watch them go around all the positive news and select the negative stuff. It was obnoxious.SEREVENT wrote:
I thought that newspapers hype stuff up to get more sales?Kmarion wrote:
We spend much more on healthcare per citizen than you. No one will ever be turned away in an emergency.
Read about Herman's and Chomsky's Propaganda Model. It's a pretty sound framework/theory/truism that sums up all of your media.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Washington Times is a sorry excuse for a newspaper to be honest. Isn't it owned by a Moonie?Kmarion wrote:
I had a buddy who worked for the Washington Times. He would let me log into his work computer. He could see the screens where they selected the stories to publish. I would watch them go around all the positive news and select the negative stuff. It was obnoxious.SEREVENT wrote:
I thought that newspapers hype stuff up to get more sales?
And pretty much all of your newspaper publications fit into the model, except the small-community ones and politically-fringe papers.
You may find it semi-interesting .
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I read Chomsky while you were probably still in grade school.
Nah, I'm probably only a few years older than you, but yeah, Chomsky is nothing new to me.
Nah, I'm probably only a few years older than you, but yeah, Chomsky is nothing new to me.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-09-02 10:30:39)
That's great, I'm glad to hear it .KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I read Chomsky while you were probably still in grade school.
Nah, I'm probably only a few years older than you, but yeah, Chomsky is nothing new to me.
Sorry if I sounded at all patronising or condescending when I recommended the propaganda model... I genuinely and sincerely meant it as a decent read relating to the "obnoxious" and selective nature of your newspapers and media. I expect I'm quite a lot younger than you assume but I'm glad there's another reader of Chomsky and such political literature here
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
He worked in the server room. I used to get free papers delivered via pdf. It wasn't too bad. ..at the time.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Washington Times is a sorry excuse for a newspaper to be honest. Isn't it owned by a Moonie?Kmarion wrote:
I had a buddy who worked for the Washington Times. He would let me log into his work computer. He could see the screens where they selected the stories to publish. I would watch them go around all the positive news and select the negative stuff. It was obnoxious.SEREVENT wrote:
I thought that newspapers hype stuff up to get more sales?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Chomsky is virtually mandatory reading. He misses the boat on some issues though. Like free speech on public college campuses.Uzique wrote:
That's great, I'm glad to hear it .KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I read Chomsky while you were probably still in grade school.
Nah, I'm probably only a few years older than you, but yeah, Chomsky is nothing new to me.
Sorry if I sounded at all patronising or condescending when I recommended the propaganda model... I genuinely and sincerely meant it as a decent read relating to the "obnoxious" and selective nature of your newspapers and media. I expect I'm quite a lot younger than you assume but I'm glad there's another reader of Chomsky and such political literature here
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I used to be a reporter, and this is primarily one of the reasons I switched. I was too idealistic.Kmarion wrote:
I had a buddy who worked for the Washington Times. He would let me log into his work computer. He could see the screens where they selected the stories to publish. I would watch them go around all the positive news and select the negative stuff. It was obnoxious.
But my thought is...if a dog wants a bone, you don't give it a rock. So is it the fault of the newsmen or the readers?
That's why the have an oped section.Pug wrote:
I used to be a reporter, and this is primarily one of the reasons I switched. I was too idealistic.Kmarion wrote:
I had a buddy who worked for the Washington Times. He would let me log into his work computer. He could see the screens where they selected the stories to publish. I would watch them go around all the positive news and select the negative stuff. It was obnoxious.
But my thought is...if a dog wants a bone, you don't give it a rock. So is it the fault of the newsmen or the readers?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And your newspaper publications don't?Uzique wrote:
And pretty much all of your newspaper publications fit into the model, except the small-community ones and politically-fringe papers.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That is also why I generally don't read "newspapers". Not only is it fitered commentary, but a lot of them also pander to specific demographics.Pug wrote:
I used to be a reporter, and this is primarily one of the reasons I switched. I was too idealistic.Kmarion wrote:
I had a buddy who worked for the Washington Times. He would let me log into his work computer. He could see the screens where they selected the stories to publish. I would watch them go around all the positive news and select the negative stuff. It was obnoxious.
But my thought is...if a dog wants a bone, you don't give it a rock. So is it the fault of the newsmen or the readers?
Of course they do. The discussion was about a Washington-based newspaper though, and I was just giving a reference of potential interest that could be relevant further reading. You seem a little too eager to be confrontational... don't make assumptions about me or my views over something that I haven't said.FEOS wrote:
And your newspaper publications don't?Uzique wrote:
And pretty much all of your newspaper publications fit into the model, except the small-community ones and politically-fringe papers.
It's as if you could reach the conclusion that I'm pro-Iraq or pro-Sri Lanka because I failed to mention that their presses also match-up to the model. No, not quite, the topic of conversation was about a particular American publication and I responded in relevance to that particular example.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
But to argue that one country's (particularly when you are not from that country) media follows a certain model while not referring to media at large implies a judgment on your part. That's what I was addressing. If you feel that all newspaper publications fit into the model, then you should clearly state that.Uzique wrote:
Of course they do. The discussion was about a Washington-based newspaper though, and I was just giving a reference of potential interest that could be relevant further reading. You seem a little too eager to be confrontational... don't make assumptions about me or my views over something that I haven't said.FEOS wrote:
And your newspaper publications don't?Uzique wrote:
And pretty much all of your newspaper publications fit into the model, except the small-community ones and politically-fringe papers.
It's as if you could reach the conclusion that I'm pro-Iraq or pro-Sri Lanka because I failed to mention that their presses also match-up to the model. No, not quite, the topic of conversation was about a particular American publication and I responded in relevance to that particular example.
In case you haven't noticed, there's an awful lot of "Europe vs America" bullshit posts here.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I do notice. Regularly people also accuse me of being biased and having an 'Anti American' agenda. It simply isn't true.FEOS wrote:
But to argue that one country's (particularly when you are not from that country) media follows a certain model while not referring to media at large implies a judgment on your part. That's what I was addressing. If you feel that all newspaper publications fit into the model, then you should clearly state that.Uzique wrote:
Of course they do. The discussion was about a Washington-based newspaper though, and I was just giving a reference of potential interest that could be relevant further reading. You seem a little too eager to be confrontational... don't make assumptions about me or my views over something that I haven't said.FEOS wrote:
And your newspaper publications don't?
It's as if you could reach the conclusion that I'm pro-Iraq or pro-Sri Lanka because I failed to mention that their presses also match-up to the model. No, not quite, the topic of conversation was about a particular American publication and I responded in relevance to that particular example.
In case you haven't noticed, there's an awful lot of "Europe vs America" bullshit posts here.
The reason I didn't mention other country's media when I recommended the Propaganda Model is because it is aimed, targeted and tested primarily on the American media-- it just so happens that other media institutions from other 'democratic' states match the same truisms. It would just be pointless and illogical to mention that in a discussion about a Washington-based paper. Not all newspapers/media do happen to fit the model - as I have said it is drawn largely around American media - it's basically extra information that the British media does so also. So that was my reason why I didn't go out my way to mention some ancillary and irrelevant information.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-02 18:13:55)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique wrote:
The reason I didn't mention other country's media when I recommended the Propaganda Model is because it is aimed, targeted and tested primarily on the American media-- it just so happens that other media institutions from other 'democratic' states match the same truisms. It would just be pointless and illogical to mention that in a discussion about a Washington-based paper. Not all newspapers/media do happen to fit the model - as I have said it is drawn largely around American media - it's basically extra information that the British media does so also. So that was my reason why I didn't go out my way to mention some ancillary and irrelevant information.
wiki wrote:
Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Thanks for repeating me. All of the primary research and testing they did was on American media institutions, and the correlations they found could be extended through all other democratic states; or, as your Wiki quote phrases it- "same basic economic structure and organizing principles". What is the saying... propaganda is to democracy what the military is to a dictatorship?FEOS wrote:
Uzique wrote:
The reason I didn't mention other country's media when I recommended the Propaganda Model is because it is aimed, targeted and tested primarily on the American media-- it just so happens that other media institutions from other 'democratic' states match the same truisms. It would just be pointless and illogical to mention that in a discussion about a Washington-based paper. Not all newspapers/media do happen to fit the model - as I have said it is drawn largely around American media - it's basically extra information that the British media does so also. So that was my reason why I didn't go out my way to mention some ancillary and irrelevant information.wiki wrote:
Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
That's no saying I've ever heard.
And just when did a theory (I hesitate to use the term...probably more appropriately a hypothesis) become a "truism"?
And just when did a theory (I hesitate to use the term...probably more appropriately a hypothesis) become a "truism"?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Most of the conclusions drawn from their study and work on the model are basically so apparent and logical that they are truisms.FEOS wrote:
That's no saying I've ever heard.
And just when did a theory (I hesitate to use the term...probably more appropriately a hypothesis) become a "truism"?
Things like when 'x' corporation pays 50% of a paper's advertising revenue and funding, the paper isn't likely to publish material that is directly harmful to the companies' interests. These sort of things aren't hypotheses or postulations. They're so apparent that they're obviously true to anyone without any need for study or scrutiny.
The saying may not be a popular idiom but it's still just about right .
Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-02 18:58:54)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/